So, the low post content rule...
- Thread starter OptimisticPessimist
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Just so you know, to add "^Not a low content post" to a low content post would still get penalized. However, since you added discussion value by saying (wrongfully) that that could be a solution, giving advice and something to respond to, like I am now, I won't punish you. I'm feeling nice right now.triggrhappy94 said:
Well, if it keeps popping up in the queue and taking your attention away from posts that do need attention, send me a PM and I'll edit it so the whole post shows or you can edit the color out, whichever works for you. But yeah, I knew the small risk that I was taking when I made that post, that's sort of why I did it.GeorgW said:
The mod queue is actually almost empty, which is damn rare. It's probably just cuz I work at very different times than the other mods. Which is good, it means I'll always have stuff to do. Today I'm up very late cuz of E3, I woke up at 7PM today.Sassafrass said:Well, if it keeps popping up in the queue and taking your attention away from posts that do need attention, send me a PM and I'll edit it so the whole post shows or you can edit the color out, whichever works for you. But yeah, I knew the small risk that I was taking when I made that post, that's sort of why I did it.GeorgW said:
If it proves a problem, I'll edit it, you don't have to bother unless some other mod misses your joke, which is a serious concern, but you only have yourself to blame in that case.
I can honestly say, because of you, I have a new found respect for mods. You guys struck me as kinda people who used to be like me, but have gone a bit overboard with power, but their saving grace is that their old self shines through now and again. Now I see, truth is, you are just like us, you just have to follow the rules more strictly than we do, and even sometimes that makes you want to cringe to do your job, but you do the right thing.GeorgW said:
Thanks, made my day.
I generally tend to avoid excessively long threads, due to their nature of not containing anything worth discussing (if you notice, many threads that have hundreds or thousands of replies tend to be of the 'Why did you choose your avatar?' or 'Pick 4 people to survive a zombie apocalypse with' variety, which themselves tend not to require you to read the other replies, as all of the replies answer a single simple question and don't exactly equate to a discussion). A few pages of comments doesn't take all too long to read (given you have the time, of course), and, in a thread that actually contains discussion and argument, I find it rather important to determine what has been discussed and what is yet to be assessed before attempting to contribute--Imagine you're walking down the street and overhear a video gaming discussion in progress; they're discussing their opinions regarding some E3 news, to which you would like to respond; sure you can join in and start discussing--let's say the Skyrim demo--, but they've already shared their opinions and want to get on with the rest of the E3 news before lunch is over and they must return to work; they shut you down and continue discussing the future of the Halo series. Your options, in this scenario, are to discuss Halo and contribute to the discussion, or walk away--sure you could prattle on about your Skyrim opinion, but that would be rather rude, as you're derailing a discussion in progress.Snowalker said:
While certain sorts of threads don't proliferate actual discussion and merit short responses, a discussion, by definition, is a conversation in which ideas and opinions are exchanged and argued for (or against). Being that forums are public places (I dare say even more public due to the expansive nature of the Internet), you should never assume your ideas and opinions are entirely unique, and (as stated in the forum rules 'These forums are used for discussion and low content posts halts[sic] discussion.'), low content posts (including the unnecessary reiteration of old ideas already discussed and dealt with in a discussion thread) halt and derail discussion.
Yeah, you're right, and I agree entirely. Problem is as I stated, finding the time is the hard part. I mean, lets be honest. You have two hours, would you read every single post in this thread before posting or would you read the last page and go from that?MikeTheElf said:
As said a billion times allready: It's to prevent people from writeing responses that doesn't contribut in any way.
What i don't like is how they discribe the rule. When i write a reply i don't know if a response of about this length could be considered a low content posts when you compare them to what is otherwise being posted.
What i don't like is how they discribe the rule. When i write a reply i don't know if a response of about this length could be considered a low content posts when you compare them to what is otherwise being posted.
Well, as you can probably tell from my post count and date of joining the Escapist, I post quite rarely--in fact, this being my third post in one day may very well be a personal record. As I stated earlier: I generally avoid massive threads, because I don't have the time to sift through all of the posts; I usually refrain from commenting at all--reading only the first few pages if a long discussion interests me. Funnily enough, that's all that ends up mattering, because most of the opinions eventually discussed in the thread are within the first few pages and the later pages contain reiterations of the same opinions.Snowalker said:
Assuming I felt the need to contribute my opinion on a topic and had a limited amount of time to do so, I don't know if I'd even get around to doing so; I tend to spend much more time writing my response than reading the thread (hell, this response has apparently taken me over 10 minutes to craft), so I would likely end up allotting myself too little time to explicate my thoughts in an attempt to make sure I'm contributing significantly. Thus, assuming I had pressing business to attend to which curtailed my time reading a thread, I would likely end up leaving before I finished writing my argument.
Because saying things like "This" and "I agree" adds nothing at all to what is being talked about
If you like what someone has said, you can PM them about it. But it adds nothing to the forum, and they ask you kindly not to write things like that.
If you like what someone has said, you can PM them about it. But it adds nothing to the forum, and they ask you kindly not to write things like that.
But this isn't the same. You logic is sound, but it honestly is different. First, those crimes have victims, or at the very least, have the potential to have victims. These do not have victims in hardly any sense other than just a bad community. Second, those are widely considered bad, this on the other hand has a wide gray area and the rules haven't always been aimed against them. I'll say this, I have no qualms with the rule expect the picture part, but saying its comparable to stealing a TV or putting children in mortal danger is quiet crazy.
The problem here is it's not a 'gray area'. They made a rule, they're enforcing it.
And while I agree my examples were greater in comparison, the core is the same: the person broke the Law/Rules. There are clear delineations and consequences.
See, the problem is one where it's not 'gray'. People would like to make it so, and argue against the ruling. The blunt truth, though, is that's what it is- people trying to argue or get away with breaking a rule they don't agree with. Getting warned, when other people have already been Banned, is pretty understanding. The Mods *do not* have to issue warnings. They *do not* have to let people break the rules, ever.
The problem here is it's not a 'gray area'. They made a rule, they're enforcing it.
And while I agree my examples were greater in comparison, the core is the same: the person broke the Law/Rules. There are clear delineations and consequences.
See, the problem is one where it's not 'gray'. People would like to make it so, and argue against the ruling. The blunt truth, though, is that's what it is- people trying to argue or get away with breaking a rule they don't agree with. Getting warned, when other people have already been Banned, is pretty understanding. The Mods *do not* have to issue warnings. They *do not* have to let people break the rules, ever.
No, personally I think you should have gotten a warning too. You do not own this Forum. Neither do I. Because someone else owns it they get to make the rules, and to be blunt- if you don't want to follow the rules, don't let the door hit you on the way out.Sgt. Sykes said:
If I disagree with a rule here (and there are some I don't agree with) I might politely argue my case. What I wouldn't do is fling arguments into the Mod's teeth and dare them to do something about it, because you know what? They can.
P.S.- the irony though is that your post had meaning and intent, it wasn't at all useless.
If you had typed a random string of letters and numbers, it would indeed have been useless and I have no doubt they would have at least warned you.
Rottweiler said:
Yeah... I'm just gonna go ahead and say that I love you. It's like the Code of Conduct came to life and explained itself to everyone.Rottweiler said:
I found I've broken it three times without meaning to. It's simply a matter of a moderator's caprices. I even had one post quoted by a moderator who agreed with me only to have another one give me a low content warning. Seriously, is there any way to appeal a ruling of one? Or are we stuck with fickle tyranny?maddawg IAJI said:
Particularly I'd like to appeal the low content warning I got for this:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.283531-Your-opinion-on-Fallout-New-Vegas-VS-Fallout-3?page=3#11145788
As you can see it did contribute to the conversation and it was pretty well received too. If you read the posts below it one user even said:
Which is what it was supposed to be. Is it possible at all to submit some sort of appeal somewhere? Because I gladly would. I even resumed normal (and verbose) conversation afterwords, if moderators can see the dates of warnings you'll see it actually wasn't until three days later I received a warning for that post. My supposition is it had more to do with subject matter offending somebody's sensibilities than anything else, but if the intent is to encourage discussion, it clearly as you can tell looking at the thread, wasn't needed. It did nothing to stifle or break up discussion, nor was it the full extent of my involvement.Quazimofo said:
The person I responded to even replied with:
.sarge1942 said:
So clearly, the post as it was, was effective communication.
All punishments should have a link to the appeal form. You fill out why you don't think you should have been warned or punished. If its a weekday, you should get a response the next day.Ghengis John said:
That all said, your post was low-content. Images should compliment your post, not dominate it. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the slogan "A picture is worth a thousand words" is nothing more then an advertisement whose slogan became popular. It holds no weight with me or with any of the other moderators.
I'm not trying to be confrontational here because I need your help. Is there any approach or procedure that would revoke the warning? Is there any point at which the forum health meter is amended such as annually or do strikes accrue ad infinitum? Are publisher's club members still susceptible to the same warning limit? Not asking to be subversive, just happens that I like it here. I don't enjoy sliding ever closer to my exile.maddawg IAJI said:
To answer your questions in order.Ghengis John said:
Is there any approach or procedure that would revoke the warning?
Like I said, you may get an appeal which you can write out to the staff. If they side with you, they'll remove the warning, if not, its removed after 6 months as part of the Amnesty clause. Although, this relies on whether or not I'm right about warnings getting appeal papers. That may be a process reserved for the Probation and Suspended.
Is there any point at which the forum health meter is amended such as annually or do strikes accrue ad infinitum?
The forum health bar only goes up to seven offenses before your banned. It goes down one offense ever 6 months and after 2 years, you're automatically cleared of all offenses. That's only however if you don't get into trouble in that time period. (Its not as hard as it sounds. Before I became a red guard, I had a spotless record and I've been here for almost 2 and a half year).
Are publisher's club members still susceptible to the same warning limit?
Yes they are, they don't get any special treatment in regards to forum behavior.
I hope these answered your questions.